The Supreme Court on Friday, 20 February, struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, delivering a significant setback on a matter vital to his economic agenda, AP reported.
The conservative-majority high court ruled six-three in the judgment, noting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
The 6-3 decision concerns tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the broad “reciprocal” tariffs he enacted on nearly all trading partners.
The majority agreed that the Constitution “very clearly” grants Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Two Trump appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—aligned with Roberts and the court’s three liberals in the majority. Meanwhile, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” the news agency quoted Kavanaugh’s statement in the dissent.
“When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s majority opinion. “It did neither here.”
Refunds to be a mess
Kavanaugh noted that the refund process was “likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument”.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” PTI quoted Justice Kavanaugh’s statement.
At the heart of his economic policy, Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to tackle trade deficits, declaring a national emergency. These followed his duties on Canada, China, and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking crisis.
Followed by a series of lawsuits, including a case from a dozen mostly Democratic-leaning states and others involving small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies and educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.
The challengers argued that the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs, and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that nullified then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program, Bloomberg reported.
How did the White House react to the ruling?
The White House has said it will rapidly replace the levies using alternative legal measures, although the fallback options are generally more cumbersome or more limited than the extensive powers Trump claimed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the news portal noted.
The decision might lower the US average effective tariff rate by over 50%. A Bloomberg Economics analysis prior to the ruling estimated that a broad decision against Trump could reduce the rate from 13.6% to 6.5%.
